You're browsing the GameFAQs Message Boards as a guest. Sign Up for free (or Log In if you already have an account) to be able to post messages, change how messages are displayed, and view media in posts.
So s/he is supposed to put in 300 hours before a review?
I honestly thought the review was near perfect.
In a perfect world yes. In addition, reviews would need to be peer reviewed with citations and references and prior knowledge and research.
Kidding aside, I wasn't knocking the review or the reviewer. But from my most recent play of Monster Hunter (Tri), at 70 hours of almost daily play, I only just defeated Barioth and was on my way to kill Rathalos ... which was only about halfway thru the game, less than that if you put single and online portions together. And since this game has to be ... at least three times bigger than Tri, 50 hours doesn't completely show you everything the game will give you, tho she did touch on most of the necessary points.
Because an older game that held different standards back than got an 8.8 doesn't mean that the next title should score higher because it has more, plus better graphics.
We have high standards today than we did back then. Tri held it's own better than 3G does now graphically for one. The game play hasn't changed, so that's a plus. The lack of the soon to be added features may have hindered the score, but that's OK. The fact that the music is pretty much the same may have held it back as well (is it even in 5.1?). The added content is nice, but we/reviewers have much, MUCH, higher standard now, than when Tri came out.
Besides, 8.8 is still a solid score. In the end, Tri held it's own better then, than 3G does now technically if you ask me. And that will lower the scores across the board. The game play and content will trump Tri for sure...and that's the heart of the game, and that's why I think this game got an 8.8.
Currently playing: Fear, Mighty Switch Force HDE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ash_wwRQFno